Brother Lawrence Pilarca, OSB
05:510 Ethics and Natural Law
Dr. Christopher S. Lutz, Ph. D
How can an evil act reconcile with a man’s desire under the aspect of good?
This statement is to be backed up by the idea that when a man desires to do something that he thinks will bring something good for himself or for his loved ones, he is achieving such desire with the knowledge of the consequence it will bring.
The main goal of this essay is to find out whether an evil act employed by man to achieve something good for himself or for his loved ones can be reconciled with human desire under the aspect of good.
Initially, let me bring out two ideas here: the idea that good is desirable, fulfilling and perfecting while bad is harmful and to be avoided. This means that a man’s action is perfected with a strong motivation aimed at a desirable end for the good of himself or for his loved ones.
This also means that the emergence of a voluntary act is coupled with knowledge as no man desires anything that is not known to him. As Mcnerny says, “Human actions are conscious willing actions, voluntary actions and they involve both knowledge and will.”
This means to say that the end is known and willed by man and thus, desired it. So, based from this argument, it can be explained that every action should be good, acceptable and worth attaining.
However, it is distressing and sad to say that records show and experiences tell us that there have been countless actions of men in the world since time immemorial that are not good. Man’s actions are not perfecting, not worth doing and thus, not desirable.
Let us try to reflect on the idea that man cannot desire one which he does not know. This is the reason why man’s desire as known to him is presumed to be good and perfecting.
His knowledge of his action is desirable and fulfilling and appears to be good. Since man’s action is apparently known to him as good and fulfilling, how is this that man’s knowledge of his action does not square with the achieved end?
It is also because of his lack of perfect knowledge that brings his actions to a desirable end under the auspices of his apparent knowledge. Man’s thinking patronizes an apparent knowledge and is devoured of the true and ultimate knowledge about the good.
These statements can be explained from the discussion of Aquinas on the truth about real good and apparent good. As Mcnerny expresses it, evil actions are committed by man because of his erroneous judgment on the idea of apparent good and real good.
This error of judgment is brought about by man’s ignorance of the knowledge about apparent good and real good. Man seems not to be able to make a distinction between the two. This incapacity brings man to commit wrong judgments resulting from the ignorance of a perfect knowledge causing the ultimate commitment of the evil act.
It is true that a man’s action is aimed at a happy, good end despite the fact that it is wrongly judged because of man’s ignorance of the knowledge of apparent and true good. Also, this explains the idea why man’s action as the means to the end is itself wrongly judged and causes the evil act.
However, we cannot really blame ignorance per se, to hold responsible for man’s commitment of an evil act. We need to thresh out an important fact about ignorance which will give light to this statement. There are cases in which ignorance entails real and authentic ignorance.
This means that ignorance is purely legitimate as the case of a man who does not know what he ought to know. Man ultimately lacks knowledge. He is a total moron and has no means to correct his stupidity. The other case of ignorance involves a man who deliberately selects not to know what he is supposed to know.
This kind of ignorance is what places man to be held responsible and accountable of his ignorance. It is therefore rightful to say that it is not man’s ignorance that must be considered as the only cause of his evil act because man can willingly choose to do evil inasmuch as he can choose to be ignorant.
This will bring us again to a discussion of the goal of human action which is the goal to an end that is good and will bring happiness. At this point, Thomas Aquinas’ ideas converge with Aristotle. With their own variations of explaining their knowledge of the evil act, the two philosophers have each to say about the existence of evil.
Aquinas believes that ignorance is the eventual cause of bad actions while Aristotle holds that man searches the pleasurable good and avoids evil in pain. Aristotle says in his discussion that when man searches for his happiness, he is inclined to decide on what ways to employ in order to attain his desire and evil as it gives him pain.
Man, thus, looks for ways of realizing his pleasures even though they seem to be not fulfilling. He says, “In most things error seems to be due to pleasure; for it appears to be good when it is not. We, therefore, choose the pleasant as good and avoid pain as evil.”
Likewise, Aristotle holds that evil lies under man’s power to do good or act well, as it also lies under man’s control of knowledge to do evil. In this case, it is an indirect way to say that a good act or an evil act befalls under a matter of preference. It can then be explained, based from Aristotle’s views, that evil is a matter of choice.
From this argument, I can say that pleasure can be the cause of evil because pleasure is going to be the moving factor of a human action that will bring him to a happy ending. This will appear, based from Aristotle’s argument, that the answer to the question of why evil exists is pleasure. But then, there will be a big difficulty when it comes to giving a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure. People may tend to mess up with their definitions of both.
As what Aristotle holds in his argument that as it lies under our power to do good or act well, it also lies under the same control of knowledge to do bad or evil. Thus, in my own understanding, I would interpret his views that an apparent good is not really good. This maybe clarified when one may consider that thinking about the sign as lack of perfect knowledge of the desired object. This would guide us to looking back at Thomas Aquinas’ standpoints on apparent good and real good.
Thomas Aquinas raises the questions “What do you want?” or “Is that the real object of your desire?” or “How do you attain the object of your desire?” From these questions, I can say that “what do you want” becomes the initial question leading to the knowledge and identification of the object of our desire. But knowing our desire and identifying it will not immediately bring us to the point of knowing the perfect knowledge of it.
It must be placed under scrutiny and a study of such desired object in order to bring it to perfection. In one case, a man’s desire that is acted upon without prior study and consideration may not lead to a good and right judgment.
A man who chooses to act on his desire without making right judgment as to whether his desire is perfecting and fulfilling, may commit an imperfect knowledge and thereby will be misled by it. This condition is what one commits an erroneous judgment that leads to the commitment of a bad action or an evil act.
Mcnerny expresses Thomas Aquinas’ view that the object of man’s intention is the end-like good that reason judges to be perfecting or fulfilling of the kind of human person we are.
The moral quality of intention is dependent on the rightness of the rational specification of human act. So, then it must be highly noted that the identification and a thorough study of the quality and kind of object of desire in every human’s mind must be considered.
This process will be the determining factor and the direct means of realizing and reaching such desire.
These arguments from Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle can eventually be reconciled and tied up by considering the fact that although pleasure is observed as the ultimate cause of an evil act, it does this by misleading and maneuvering man’s imperfect knowledge on the object of man’s desire.
If we will consider that happiness and pleasure carry the same implication, then pleasure will surely be the ground for every human act, whether it is good or evil.
But ignorance will still be the one I hold responsible for man’s failure to differentiate between real good and apparent good. With these arguments coming from these two great philosophers, I can say that an evil act squares with the fact that whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good.
05:510 Ethics and Natural Law
Dr. Christopher S. Lutz, Ph. D
Can evil reconcile with the idea that whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good? It is true that when a man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good.
This statement is to be backed up by the idea that when a man desires to do something that he thinks will bring something good for himself or for his loved ones, he is achieving such desire with the knowledge of the consequence it will bring.
The main goal of this essay is to find out whether an evil act employed by man to achieve something good for himself or for his loved ones can be reconciled with human desire under the aspect of good.
Initially, let me bring out two ideas here: the idea that good is desirable, fulfilling and perfecting while bad is harmful and to be avoided. This means that a man’s action is perfected with a strong motivation aimed at a desirable end for the good of himself or for his loved ones.
This also means that the emergence of a voluntary act is coupled with knowledge as no man desires anything that is not known to him. As Mcnerny says, “Human actions are conscious willing actions, voluntary actions and they involve both knowledge and will.”
This means to say that the end is known and willed by man and thus, desired it. So, based from this argument, it can be explained that every action should be good, acceptable and worth attaining.
However, it is distressing and sad to say that records show and experiences tell us that there have been countless actions of men in the world since time immemorial that are not good. Man’s actions are not perfecting, not worth doing and thus, not desirable.
Let us try to reflect on the idea that man cannot desire one which he does not know. This is the reason why man’s desire as known to him is presumed to be good and perfecting.
His knowledge of his action is desirable and fulfilling and appears to be good. Since man’s action is apparently known to him as good and fulfilling, how is this that man’s knowledge of his action does not square with the achieved end?
How come that man’s actions bring evil to others, and to the world? How is it that man does not recognize that the means he uses to realize his desired act is evil? These questions will bring us to a major point which is clearly explained by St Thomas Aquinas in his writings.
He explains that no human act is in itself aimed at a bad end. No man desires an action that brings destruction to others. But man is just human and is therefore subject to err and commit mistakes. It is in being such that his judgment can mislead his own actions.
It is also because of his lack of perfect knowledge that brings his actions to a desirable end under the auspices of his apparent knowledge. Man’s thinking patronizes an apparent knowledge and is devoured of the true and ultimate knowledge about the good.
These statements can be explained from the discussion of Aquinas on the truth about real good and apparent good. As Mcnerny expresses it, evil actions are committed by man because of his erroneous judgment on the idea of apparent good and real good.
This error of judgment is brought about by man’s ignorance of the knowledge about apparent good and real good. Man seems not to be able to make a distinction between the two. This incapacity brings man to commit wrong judgments resulting from the ignorance of a perfect knowledge causing the ultimate commitment of the evil act.
It is true that a man’s action is aimed at a happy, good end despite the fact that it is wrongly judged because of man’s ignorance of the knowledge of apparent and true good. Also, this explains the idea why man’s action as the means to the end is itself wrongly judged and causes the evil act.
However, we cannot really blame ignorance per se, to hold responsible for man’s commitment of an evil act. We need to thresh out an important fact about ignorance which will give light to this statement. There are cases in which ignorance entails real and authentic ignorance.
This means that ignorance is purely legitimate as the case of a man who does not know what he ought to know. Man ultimately lacks knowledge. He is a total moron and has no means to correct his stupidity. The other case of ignorance involves a man who deliberately selects not to know what he is supposed to know.
This kind of ignorance is what places man to be held responsible and accountable of his ignorance. It is therefore rightful to say that it is not man’s ignorance that must be considered as the only cause of his evil act because man can willingly choose to do evil inasmuch as he can choose to be ignorant.
This will bring us again to a discussion of the goal of human action which is the goal to an end that is good and will bring happiness. At this point, Thomas Aquinas’ ideas converge with Aristotle. With their own variations of explaining their knowledge of the evil act, the two philosophers have each to say about the existence of evil.
Aquinas believes that ignorance is the eventual cause of bad actions while Aristotle holds that man searches the pleasurable good and avoids evil in pain. Aristotle says in his discussion that when man searches for his happiness, he is inclined to decide on what ways to employ in order to attain his desire and evil as it gives him pain.
Man, thus, looks for ways of realizing his pleasures even though they seem to be not fulfilling. He says, “In most things error seems to be due to pleasure; for it appears to be good when it is not. We, therefore, choose the pleasant as good and avoid pain as evil.”
Likewise, Aristotle holds that evil lies under man’s power to do good or act well, as it also lies under man’s control of knowledge to do evil. In this case, it is an indirect way to say that a good act or an evil act befalls under a matter of preference. It can then be explained, based from Aristotle’s views, that evil is a matter of choice.
From this argument, I can say that pleasure can be the cause of evil because pleasure is going to be the moving factor of a human action that will bring him to a happy ending. This will appear, based from Aristotle’s argument, that the answer to the question of why evil exists is pleasure. But then, there will be a big difficulty when it comes to giving a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure. People may tend to mess up with their definitions of both.
As what Aristotle holds in his argument that as it lies under our power to do good or act well, it also lies under the same control of knowledge to do bad or evil. Thus, in my own understanding, I would interpret his views that an apparent good is not really good. This maybe clarified when one may consider that thinking about the sign as lack of perfect knowledge of the desired object. This would guide us to looking back at Thomas Aquinas’ standpoints on apparent good and real good.
Thomas Aquinas raises the questions “What do you want?” or “Is that the real object of your desire?” or “How do you attain the object of your desire?” From these questions, I can say that “what do you want” becomes the initial question leading to the knowledge and identification of the object of our desire. But knowing our desire and identifying it will not immediately bring us to the point of knowing the perfect knowledge of it.
It must be placed under scrutiny and a study of such desired object in order to bring it to perfection. In one case, a man’s desire that is acted upon without prior study and consideration may not lead to a good and right judgment.
A man who chooses to act on his desire without making right judgment as to whether his desire is perfecting and fulfilling, may commit an imperfect knowledge and thereby will be misled by it. This condition is what one commits an erroneous judgment that leads to the commitment of a bad action or an evil act.
Mcnerny expresses Thomas Aquinas’ view that the object of man’s intention is the end-like good that reason judges to be perfecting or fulfilling of the kind of human person we are.
The moral quality of intention is dependent on the rightness of the rational specification of human act. So, then it must be highly noted that the identification and a thorough study of the quality and kind of object of desire in every human’s mind must be considered.
This process will be the determining factor and the direct means of realizing and reaching such desire.
These arguments from Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle can eventually be reconciled and tied up by considering the fact that although pleasure is observed as the ultimate cause of an evil act, it does this by misleading and maneuvering man’s imperfect knowledge on the object of man’s desire.
If we will consider that happiness and pleasure carry the same implication, then pleasure will surely be the ground for every human act, whether it is good or evil.
But ignorance will still be the one I hold responsible for man’s failure to differentiate between real good and apparent good. With these arguments coming from these two great philosophers, I can say that an evil act squares with the fact that whatever man desires, he desires it under the aspect of good.
No comments:
Post a Comment